> I am hardly surprised so many people cite "How many people in the world don't like the US so we need a new president" when voicing their support for Kerry.
Are people actually saying that?
> I would rather look out for the US and tell the rest of the world to mind its own business
Now you know how Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and a bunch of other countries feel.
> When you turn on a talk show, it's just small sound bites repeated over and over again like mantras.
Personally, I think it's a nice change from the usual election year boilerplate promises to cut taxes, increase services, get tough on crime, and buy everyone a pony.
If only the local politicians would change the tune as well...
> A major defining difference between the two parties is that one is standing behind its decisions while the other is trying to dismiss its responsibility in its involvement in those decisions.
FYI, "stay the course" is only a good policy when you're on the right course.
> As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were capable of forming attitudes. Who exactly defines what the "world attitude" is? It's awfully presumptious, to define any particular attitude as the "world attitude". There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, or is one that you should be "in tune with". The US couldn't possibly be in the right if it ignores the "world attitude" could it?
The study doesn't say that the "world attitude" is correct; it just points out that most Bush supporters think the world attitude is vastly different than it actually is.
> Kerry supporters love to conclude that because we know NOW that Iraq had no WMD's in hand that Bush "made incorrect judgments before the war" (quoting the study). That does not follow -- based on the information available AT THE TIME, he assessed the risk and was unwilling to gamble on the "No WMD" option.
Those of us who didn't tune out the news sources Bush didn't want us to hear knew it then.
> Bush took the only course of action that guaranteed we would know Iraq would not provide WMD to terrorists.
So, is he also going to take the only course of action that guarantees that Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc. don't provide WMD to terrorists?
> > 'Perfigo is a developer of packaged network access control solutions that provide endpoint policy analysis, compliance, and access enforcement capabilities.'
> It's all so clear to me now.
Unfortunately your PHB will feel like he has to pretend to understand it, because all the other PHBs are pretending they understand it and yours doesn't want to look like the only person in the room who doesn't get it. So he'll bring home a million dollars worth and tell you to install it.
>..helping to get the basics before starting to learn c.
It was explicitly designed as an instructional language, to help (or force) beginners to get into some good habits before being turned loose in the jungle of real-world IT.
> But that was a long time ago and I pose the question. What language is the "teaching language" now? Do they have Pascal?
Pascal, C, C++, Java,... it's about time to change again. The lifecycle of a teaching language is about the same as the period required to get a degree, virtually assuring that schools turn out a mass of BS's who are monolingual in whatever language industry just quit using.
I wonder if you could get rich by printing up a bunch of "Neener, neener!" or <Nelson>Ha, ha!</Nelson> signs for one side or the other to put up the day after the election.
> When driving to work, I pass a yard with one of those rentable billboard signs (the ones with the movable type). Flourenscent green and red letters nonetheless.
Maybe they're planning ahead: after the election they can just change it to a Christmas message.
> A couple of big 4x8 BC04 signs have been spray-painted with "LIARS" and "1000 DEAD" and they're now covering them with plastic wrap hoping the spray painters will be foiled (sorry) and the signs protected.
Greatly offending the anti-birthcontrol crowd, no doubt.
> A homeowner looked out and saw a man lying face down on his driveway. Going out to check, he found that the man was unconscious, so he went back in and called 911. When the rescue crew moved the man, they found him clutching Kerry (and other Democratic) signs under his body. His car was parked nearby, and they found more stolen Democratic signs in it. He was removing them, not placing them.
I vaguely recall hearing on the news a couple of years ago that some local candidate got caught personally removing his opponent's signs.
> To demonstrate my support for my preferred presidential candidate, I went by the local headquarters and made a donation and picked up a yard sign. I put it out with some trepidation, since I knew that mine was the only sign of its type in my neighborhood
> Science requires objectivity and dismissing ideas because they are offensive to your tastes is a bias. While intelligent design may not be probable, there is still a minute possibility that it could have occured. This needs to be investigated like anything else.
Investigate what? A big steaming pile of non sequiturs and strawman arguments, and claims that <wink>maybe it's not God</wink> that they're talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
> I am hardly surprised so many people cite "How many people in the world don't like the US so we need a new president" when voicing their support for Kerry.
Are people actually saying that?
> I would rather look out for the US and tell the rest of the world to mind its own business
Now you know how Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and a bunch of other countries feel.
> When you turn on a talk show, it's just small sound bites repeated over and over again like mantras.
Personally, I think it's a nice change from the usual election year boilerplate promises to cut taxes, increase services, get tough on crime, and buy everyone a pony.
If only the local politicians would change the tune as well...
> A major defining difference between the two parties is that one is standing behind its decisions while the other is trying to dismiss its responsibility in its involvement in those decisions.
FYI, "stay the course" is only a good policy when you're on the right course.
> To what extent Iraq had a WMD program is still up for debate, it's clear he had intent, but not so clear exactly what he was acomplishing.
Excellent illustration of what this article is all about.
> As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were capable of forming attitudes. Who exactly defines what the "world attitude" is? It's awfully presumptious, to define any particular attitude as the "world attitude". There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, or is one that you should be "in tune with". The US couldn't possibly be in the right if it ignores the "world attitude" could it?
The study doesn't say that the "world attitude" is correct; it just points out that most Bush supporters think the world attitude is vastly different than it actually is.
> Kerry supporters love to conclude that because we know NOW that Iraq had no WMD's in hand that Bush "made incorrect judgments before the war" (quoting the study). That does not follow -- based on the information available AT THE TIME, he assessed the risk and was unwilling to gamble on the "No WMD" option.
Those of us who didn't tune out the news sources Bush didn't want us to hear knew it then.
> Bush took the only course of action that guaranteed we would know Iraq would not provide WMD to terrorists.
So, is he also going to take the only course of action that guarantees that Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc. don't provide WMD to terrorists?
> I don't see, however, how you can group all Bush supporters into a "stupid" group because of the attitudes of some.
We don't. We categorize them as stupid because they support Bush.
> In other news, 93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Yeah, but Bush supporters think only 7% are.
Does this mean we'll start getting spam for products to lengthen your index finger?
> > 'Perfigo is a developer of packaged network access control solutions that provide endpoint policy analysis, compliance, and access enforcement capabilities.'
> It's all so clear to me now.
Unfortunately your PHB will feel like he has to pretend to understand it, because all the other PHBs are pretending they understand it and yours doesn't want to look like the only person in the room who doesn't get it. So he'll bring home a million dollars worth and tell you to install it.
>
It was explicitly designed as an instructional language, to help (or force) beginners to get into some good habits before being turned loose in the jungle of real-world IT.
> But that was a long time ago and I pose the question. What language is the "teaching language" now? Do they have Pascal?
Pascal, C, C++, Java,
"Europeans call me by name, Americans by value."
Wasn't there a story last year saying they were putting G into semi-retirement, due to long term overexposure?
> When you can buy a pretty good OS-less computer at Walmart.com for around $250us, that's pretty good.
Yes, but when the computers get down to $-500US, they can be sold with lots of bundled software for $250US, and nobody will need to steal anymore.
He's just been seeing too many politicians making absurd claims on television lately, and thought he ought to get in on it too.
I wonder if you could get rich by printing up a bunch of "Neener, neener!" or <Nelson>Ha, ha!</Nelson> signs for one side or the other to put up the day after the election.
> When driving to work, I pass a yard with one of those rentable billboard signs (the ones with the movable type). Flourenscent green and red letters nonetheless.
Maybe they're planning ahead: after the election they can just change it to a Christmas message.
Now we know what happened to the missing human genes.
> A couple of big 4x8 BC04 signs have been spray-painted with "LIARS" and "1000 DEAD" and they're now covering them with plastic wrap hoping the spray painters will be foiled (sorry) and the signs protected.
Greatly offending the anti-birthcontrol crowd, no doubt.
> No president has been hated more since Lincoln, it would seem.
Johnson? Nixon? Reagan? Clinton?
> A homeowner looked out and saw a man lying face down on his driveway. Going out to check, he found that the man was unconscious, so he went back in and called 911. When the rescue crew moved the man, they found him clutching Kerry (and other Democratic) signs under his body. His car was parked nearby, and they found more stolen Democratic signs in it. He was removing them, not placing them.
I vaguely recall hearing on the news a couple of years ago that some local candidate got caught personally removing his opponent's signs.
> To demonstrate my support for my preferred presidential candidate, I went by the local headquarters and made a donation and picked up a yard sign. I put it out with some trepidation, since I knew that mine was the only sign of its type in my neighborhood
Ah, a Nader supporter.
> Because medicine is not that profitable, in fact you can waste your life savings just trying to stay alive.
Yeah, you should go ahead and die while you've got some left to take with you.
> Science requires objectivity and dismissing ideas because they are offensive to your tastes is a bias. While intelligent design may not be probable, there is still a minute possibility that it could have occured. This needs to be investigated like anything else.
Investigate what? A big steaming pile of non sequiturs and strawman arguments, and claims that <wink>maybe it's not God</wink> that they're talking about?